Ex Parte Haque et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2019

15384582 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/384,582 12/20/2016
108359 7590 02/08/2019
CHIP LAW GROUP
155 NW ACKER DR SUITE 4250
CHICAGO, IL 60606
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Munsi Haque
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
SP352344US02 4011
EXAMINER
MCINNISH, KEVIN K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
OPA
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@chiplawgroup.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
sonydocket@evalueserve.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MUNSI HAQUE, KAZUSHI SATO, ALI TABATABAI, and
TERUHIKO SUZUKI
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 21-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a video decoding system that extracts ( 1) a
hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) fixed and variable syntaxes, and (2) a
sub-layer from a bit stream based on those syntaxes, and decodes the bit
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Sony Corporation. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
stream based on the extracted sub-layer. See generally Abstract; Spec.
,r,r 362-365. Claim 21 is illustrative:
21. A decoding method for decoding an encoded bit stream,
compnsmg:
extracting a hypothetical reference decoder (HRD) fixed
syntax including a fixed parameter common to a plurality of sub-
layers of the encoded bit stream, and a HRD variable syntax
including variable parameters for each sub-layer of the plurality
of sub-layers;
extracting a sub-layer of the plurality of sub-layers from
the encoded bit stream based on the HRD fixed syntax and the
HRD variable syntax; and
decoding the encoded bit stream based on the extracted
sub-layer,
wherein a first parameter in the HRD fixed syntax
and a second parameter in the HRD variable syntax
identify at least one of an input bit rate of a coded picture
buffer (CPB) or a buffer size of the CPB in the extracted
sub-layer.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zhu (US 2010/0091837 Al; published Apr. 15, 2010) and
Zhu (US 2010/019573 8 Al; published Aug. 5, 2010) ("Zhu2"). Final Act.
5-7. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Zhu, Zhu2, and ITU-T H264 Series H: Audiovisual and
Multimedia Systems, Infrastructure of Audiovisual Services - Coding of
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed May
15, 2017 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed November 20, 2017
("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed January 11, 2018 ("Ans.");
and (4) the Reply Brief filed February 22, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
Moving Video, Advanced Video Coding for Generic Audiovisual Services,
Int'l Telecomm. Union (2003) ("H.264"). Final Act. 7-8.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ZHU AND ZHU2
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Zhu
discloses, among other things, extracting an HRD fixed syntax including a
fixed parameter common to plural sub-layers of an encoded bit stream, and
an HRD variable syntax including variable parameters for each sub-layer.
Final Act. 5. According to the Examiner, Zhu's Table 3 shows both fixed
and variable parameters with respect to the length of bits associated with a
given parameter. See Final Act. 5; Ans. 3--4. For example, the Examiner
finds that the descriptor "ue(3)" represents a fixed parameter whose length is
fixed at 3 bits, but the descriptor "ue(v)" denotes a variable bit length. See
id. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Zhu does not decode the bit
stream based on the extracted sub-layer, the Examiner cites Zhu2 for
teaching this feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious.
Final Act. 5-6.
Appellants argue that Zhu does not disclose an HRD fixed syntax with
a fixed parameter common to plural sub-layers, but rather discloses a
variable syntax where parameters are defined separately for each layer by
executing a "for-loop." App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4--8.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 21 by finding
that Zhu and Zhu2 collectively would have taught or suggested extracting an
3
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
HRD fixed syntax including a fixed parameter common to plural sub-layers
of an encoded bit stream?
ANALYSIS
It is undisputed that Zhu discloses extracting an HRD variable syntax;
rather, this dispute turns on whether Zhu teaches or suggests extracting an
HRD fixed syntax as claimed.
Appellants' Figure 5 shows an example of an HRD fixed syntax 502
that, according to paragraph 130 of the Specification, describes parameters
associated with a hypothetical reference decoder operation that do not vary
based on temporal layers 230 of Figure 2, sub-layer, or coded picture buffer
(CPB). A key aspect of this fixed syntax is that it is common for all
temporal layers. Spec. ,r 362. According to the Specification, this fixed
syntax simplifies performance and reduces complexity by enabling
consistent control over decoding processing. Id. ,r 140. By sharing a single
set of constant values over all temporal layers, complexity is reduced. Id.
In contrast, an HRD variable syntax, such as that shown in
Appellants' Figure 6, describes variable parameters associated with the
hypothetical reference decoder operation, and can include a loop structure to
define a set of parameters for each occurrence of the CPB. See Spec.
,r,r 141-150. A key aspect of the variable syntax is that the HRD parameters
vary for each temporal layer. Id. ,r 163. The variable syntax improves
performance by providing finer-grained control over CPB processing of the
temporal layers. Id. ,r 150. Moreover, using individual occurrences of the
variable syntax can accelerate processing by exploiting individual
differences between different occurrences of the temporal layers. Id.
4
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
Turning to the rejection, the Examiner finds that Zhu's Table 3 in
Figure 3 discloses at least two fixed parameters common to plural sub-
layers, namely "bit_rate_scale" and "cpb_size_scale," and their associated
four-bit lengths indicated by the parameters' associated "u(4)" descriptors.
Final Act. 5. Notably, these parameters match those in the HRD fixed
syntax shown in Appellants' Figure 5, namely "bit_rate_scale" 410 and
"cpb_size_scale" 412, respectively. Accord App. Br. 9 (noting that
"bit_rate_scale" in Appellants' Figure 5 is a fixed parameter common to
plural sub-layers of an encoded bit stream); Reply Br. 6 (same).
Significantly, the "bit_rate_scale" and "cpb_size_scale" fixed
parameters relied upon by the Examiner are distinct from their counterpart
variable parameters "bit_rate_scale [i]" and "cpb_size_scale [i]" that are
modified based on incrementing the value of the index "i" in the "for"
loop----modifications that are consistent with those made by the "for" loop in
the variable syntax shown in Appellants' Figure 6. Accord Zhu ,r 28 (noting
that "bit_rate_scale [i]" and "cpb_size_scale [i]" are equal to their
corresponding value for the scalable layer "i," respectively). Appellants,
however, do not squarely address-let alone persuasively rebut-the distinct
"bit_rate_scale" and "cpb_size_scale" fixed parameters relied upon by the
Examiner in the rejection. See Final Act. 5. Rather, Appellants' arguments
center on the variable versions of these parameters that are modified by
incrementing the index "i" in the "for" loop in Zhu's Table 3-not their
distinct fixed versions. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 5---6.
So even assuming, without deciding, that fixing a particular bit length
for different layers as indicated by, for example, the "u( 4 )" descriptor in
Zhu's Table 3 somehow cannot constitute a fixed parameter of an HRD
5
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
fixed syntax as Appellants contend, Appellants still do not persuasively
rebut the Examiner's reliance on the fixed "bit_rate_scale" and
"cpb_size_scale" parameters in that table. To the extent that Appellants
contend that these parameters somehow are not fixed----despite their
inclusion in Appellants' Figure 5-there is no persuasive evidence on this
record to substantiate such a contention. Accordingly, the weight of the
evidence on this record favors the Examiner.
Lastly, Appellants' contention that the Examiner allegedly failed to
explain the motivation to combine the cited references was raised for the
first time on page 8 of the Reply Brief and, therefore, such comb inability
arguments are waived under 37 C.F.R. § 4I.41(b)(2). Compare Reply Br. 8
with App. Br. 6-9. Nor has good cause been shown to raise these arguments
for the first time in the Reply Brief.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 21, and claims 22-26 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 27-
29. Final Act. 7-8. Because this rejection is not argued separately with
particularity (see App. Br. 9), we are not persuaded of error in this rejection
for the reasons previously discussed.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21-29 under § 103.
6
Appeal2018-004240
Application 15/384,582
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 21-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7